Impact of the coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) pandemic on the provision of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) antenatal care and outcomes of pregnancies in women with IBD

© 2021 The Authors. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2021-000603Background The impact of COVID-19 on pregnant Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients is currently unknown. Reconfiguration of services during the pandemic may negatively affect medical and obstetric care. We aimed to examine the impacts on IBD antenatal care and pregnancy outcomes. Methods Retrospective data were recorded in consecutive patients attending for IBD antenatal care including outpatient appointments, infusion unit visits and advice line encounters. Results We included 244 pregnant women with IBD, of which 75 (30.7%) were on biologics in whom the treatment was stopped in 29.3% at a median 28 weeks gestation. In addition 9% of patients were on corticosteroids and 21.5% continued on thiopurines. The care provided during 460 patient encounters was not affected by the pandemic in 94.1% but 68.2% were performed via telephone (compared to 3% pre-pandemic practice; p<0.0001). One-hundred-ten women delivered 111 alive babies (mean 38.2 weeks gestation, mean birthweight 3324grams) with 12 (11.0%) giving birth before week 37. Birth occurred by vaginal delivery in 72 (56.4%) and by caesarean section in 48 (43.6%) cases. Thirty three were elective (12 for IBD indications) and 15 emergency caesarean sections. Breast feeding rates were low (38.6%). Amongst 244 pregnant women with IBD 1 suspected COVID-19 infection was recorded. Conclusion IBD antenatal care adjustments during the COVID-19 pandemic have not negatively affected patient care. Despite high levels of immunosuppression only a single COVID-19 infection occurred. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were infrequent

Implementation of an intervention bundle leads to quality improvement in ulcerative colitis endoscopy reporting

BACKGROUND: Accurate and detailed endoscopy reporting in ulcerative colitis (UC) is critical for clinical decision‐making. High‐quality reporting involves inclusion of several criteria, previously identified by an independent group of experts (Building Research in IBD Globally (BRIDGe) group). Few studies have evaluated UC reporting quality. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of an intervention bundle designed to standardise and improve UC endoscopy reporting. METHODS: This intervention bundle included: integration of a template into reporting software; endoscopist training; instructional posters in endoscopy rooms; cohorting patients onto specific lists. Reporting quality was judged against 10 criteria recommended by BRIDGe. In phase one, UC endoscopy reports were retrospectively evaluated at a centre with prior implementation of the intervention bundle and compared to six centres without. In phase two, the intervention bundle was prospectively implemented and evaluated at a single centre. RESULTS: In phase one, the intervention was associated with greater inclusion of BRIDGe reporting criteria from median 5 (IQR 5‐7) to 7 (5‐8), P < 0.0001. This was replicated in phase two, with improved reporting after the intervention from 5 (4‐6) to 6 (5‐8), P < 0.0001. Reporting of endoscopic indices was more frequent in the centre with prior intervention (77.7% (202/260) vs 44.4% (400/900), OR 4.35 95%CI 3.16‐6.00, P < 0.0001). In phase two, implementation of the bundle increased the use of endoscopic indices pre‐intervention vs post‐intervention (57.7% (131/190) vs 69.6% (117/168), OR 1.68 95%CI 1.1‐2.56, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to demonstrate that an intervention bundle can achieve greater standardisation and improve UC endoscopy reporting

Assessment, endoscopy, and treatment in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (PROTECT-ASUC): a multicentre, observational, case-control study

BackgroundThere is a paucity of evidence to support safe and effective management of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify alterations to established conventional evidence-based management of acute severe ulcerative colitis during the early COVID-19 pandemic, the effect on outcomes, and any associations with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. MethodsThe PROTECT-ASUC study was a multicentre, observational, case-control study in 60 acute secondary care hospitals throughout the UK. We included adults (≥18 years) with either ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease unclassified, who presented with acute severe ulcerative colitis and fulfilled the Truelove and Witts criteria. Cases and controls were identified as either admitted or managed in emergency ambulatory care settings between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic period cohort), or between Jan 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019 (historical control cohort), respectively. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or colectomy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04411784. FindingsWe included 782 patients (398 in the pandemic period cohort and 384 in the historical control cohort) who met the Truelove and Witts criteria for acute severe ulcerative colitis. The proportion of patients receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or surgery was higher during the pandemic period than in the historical period (217 [55%] of 393 patients vs 159 [42%] of 380 patients; p=0·00024) and the time to rescue therapy was shorter in the pandemic cohort than in the historical cohort (p=0·0026). This difference was driven by a greater use of rescue and primary induction therapies with biologicals, ciclosporin, or tofacitinib in the COVID-19 pandemic period cohort than in the historical control period cohort (177 [46%] of 387 patients in the COVID-19 cohort vs 134 [36%] of 373 patients in the historical cohort; p=0·0064). During the pandemic, more patients received ambulatory (outpatient) intravenous steroids (51 [13%] of 385 patients vs 19 [5%] of 360 patients; p=0·00023). Fewer patients received thiopurines (29 [7%] of 398 patients vs 46 [12%] of 384; p=0·029) and 5-aminosalicylic acids (67 [17%] of 398 patients vs 98 [26%] of 384; p=0·0037) during the pandemic than in the historical control period. Colectomy rates were similar between the pandemic and historical control groups (64 [16%] of 389 vs 50 [13%] of 375; p=0·26); however, laparoscopic surgery was less frequently performed during the pandemic period (34 [53%] of 64] vs 38 [76%] of 50; p=0·018). Five (2%) of 253 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during hospital treatment. Two (2%) of 103 patients re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the 3-month follow-up were positive 5 days and 12 days, respectively, after discharge from index admission. Both recovered without serious outcomes. InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic altered practice patterns of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis but was associated with similar outcomes to a historical cohort. Despite continued use of high-dose corticosteroids and biologicals, the incidence of COVID-19 within 3 months was low and not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes